NBC And CNN Lying About The George Zimmerman Tape: “We mentioned theother day how during a Today Show segment NBC had edited the 911 phonecall of George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.The edited version made him sound like a racial profiler.

Here's the transcript of the audio NBC played:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here's the actual transcript:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs orsomething. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

“NBC isn’t the only network slinking away from overcooking the caseagainst George Zimmerman’s alleged racism. On the March 21 edition ofAnderson Cooper 360, a CNN audio expert enhanced Zimmerman's 9-1-1 calland suggested he had used a racial slur, 'f--ing coon,' as he wasfollowing Trayvon Martin. Reporter Gary Tuchman asserted: 'It certainlysounds like that word to me.'

...Two weeks later on the same show on April 4, CNN re-assessed the tapewith another CNN expert, and now felt it suggests George Zimmerman wasjust chilly, muttering the words ‘f--ing cold’ under his breath. Tuchmanexplained: ‘The reason some say that would be relevant is because it wasunseasonably cold in Florida that night and raining.’ Oopsy.

...Oddly, on other CNN programs, they’re declaring the word could be‘punks’ instead of ‘cold.’ With this kind of analysis, if Zimmerman werecharged, it would be tough to talk a jury into reading Zimmerman’s mind.CNN can’t seem to do it.”

In December 2014, a CNN panel consisting of Margaret Hoover, Sally Kohn,Sunny Hostin and Mel Robbins all put their hands up and displayed a signsaying, “I Can’t Breathe,” a reference to the slogan “Hands Up, Don’tShoot,” which is based on the idea that Michael Brown had his hands upwhen shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014.

Sally Kohn said that “thousands of Americans are marching in New Yorkand Washington and across the country, demanding a justice system thatapplies the same to everybody and honors our values, and we want you toknow our hearts are out there marching with them.”

This isn’t the first time CNN’s Kohn has repeated the claim that MichaelBrown had his hands up before being shot:

Many allegations swirling re #FergusonShooting. Only sure facts,according to police, is Mike Brown was unarmed and fleeing with hands up.

— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) August 16, 2014

However, this claim has been proven to be untrue. Barack Obama’s JusticeDepartment investigated the shooting and concluded that the use of forcewas not unreasonable and that Brown charged at Officer Darren Wilsonbefore being shot.

The Washington Post ran an article in early 2015 on its’ “Fact Checker”blog entitled, “Hands up, don’t shoot’ did not happen in Ferguson.”

Sherelle Smith, the sister of Sylville Smith, a black male shot by ablack police officer in August spoke to news reporters after hisshooting. CNN deceptively edited the clip to make it sound like she wascalling for peace in response to the shooting, when in fact she wasencouraging violent behavior in the suburbs of the city.

In the full video, Smith also says, “Stop burning down shit we need inour community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn they shit down. Weneed our shit. We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it.”

When called out, CNN later updated a video clip on their website,saying, “An earlier version of this story mischaracterized what thevictim’s sister was trying to convey.”

Rioters in Milwaukee attacked police, even hitting one in the head witha brick. Eight businesses were burned and a squad car was destroyed.(RELATED: Growing Number Of Race Riots Leave A Dark Mark On Obama’s Legacy)

False Story 3: CNN Says It’s Illegal To Look At Wikileaks

In one baffling moment from October 2016, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo claimedthat it was illegal to look at Wikileaks.

“Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolendocuments. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn aboutthis, you’re learning from us,” Cuomo said during on television.

During that time, Wikileaks was dumping hacked emails from JohnPodesta’s inbox on a day-to-day basis, many of which reflectednegatively on the Clinton campaign. (RELATED: The 44 Most DamningStories From WikiLeaks)

Emails released by Wikileaks also showed that CNN collaborated with theDNC to make interview questions for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

Of course, this isn’t true. It is not against the law to view Wikileaksor possess hacked documents, as long as you are not involved in breakingthe law by hacking them.

False Story 4: CNN Says Rape Is Pre-Existing Condition Under ACHA

A headline on CNN.com from early May read, “Rape and domestic violencecould be pre-existing conditions.” CNN argued that the American HealthCare Act (AHCA) could make sexual assault a pre-existing condition,preventing women who survive rape from getting health care.

Polifact, which has previously displayed some liberal-leaning bias, saidthe claim that “[u]nder the House Republican health plan, sexual assaultis a pre-existing condition” was “misleading” and “mostly false.”

False Story 5: CNN Had To Correct False Comey Report

An example most closely related to Trump’s comments Tuesday can be foundin CNN recently having to correct their reporting about James Comey.

CNN reported on June 6th that Comey was going to contradict PresidentTrump’s claim that he wasn’t under FBI investigation in his Senatetestimony, a report which obviously was going to make Trump look like aliar.

Of course, this isn’t what Comey said in the Senate. Instead, Comey didnot dispute Trump’s claims that he told the president that he was notunder FBI investigation. (RELATED: Comey Confirms: Trump Wasn’t UnderFBI Investigation)

The post was later updated with a correction, reading, “This article waspublished before Comey released his prepared opening statement. Thearticle and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does notdirectly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not underinvestigation in his prepared testimony released after this story waspublished.”

If you want to get the sense of what goes on in real newsrooms, seehow many sources they quote for a serious story. The Times, WaPo, NBC,and the rest of the upper echelon of the MSM will have multiplesources. They almost never write a story without them, and if they do,they make it clear that it's from one source and unconfirmed.

Jayson Blair: New York Times reporter Jayson Blair was investigated byhis newspaper in 2003 and accused of inventing numerous reports. He wasespecially prone to inventing news reports supposedly filed from othercities, while he was in fact working from his apartment in Brooklyn.However, the scandal that ultimately prompted his resignation involvedaccusations of plagiarism in a story he filed about the family of asoldier missing in Iraq.

The NYT conceded that Blair’s career of fabulism was a “profoundbetrayal of trust, and a low point in the 152-year history of thenewspaper.”

They're desperatelytrying to undermine the press that is beating up the lies coming fromthe current administration.

You're fucking INSANE!

The lamestream press is totally corrupted, waging war on Trump, not tobe trusted ever again.

You must be the most gullible POS on the planet!

Did you not grasp what happened to an industry that went all-in onlibitardia?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/5369

THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals isover. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that soughtthe political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of theWashington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percentconservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to beself-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996,another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the PewResearch Center for the People and the Press found the national media tobe 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media'spolitics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided tocall themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, thePew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those ofself-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. Andthe proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyonddispute.

Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answersare, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for amoment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumberedliberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush begetting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agreewith that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostilityif the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And Icould go on.

The Pew poll also found that 55 percent of national journalists believethat Bush should be treated more critically by the press than he hasbeen. They think he's gotten off too easy, despite empirical evidence ofmedia Bush bashing. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examinedthe coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows andfound only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks afterSeptember 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates werepositive. For Bush, they've been 60-plus percent negative.

With the evidence of liberal dominance so overwhelming, a leading presscritic is now calling for more ideological diversity in the media. TomRosenstiel, who helped design the Pew poll and who runs the Project forExcellence in Journalism, says it's necessary not to think just ofdiversity that makes newsrooms "look like America," but to create apress corps that "thinks like America."

Terms of UseNewsHosting Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Agreement

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS IN ORDER TO PROCEED

NewsHosting has a zero-tolerance SPAM policy.

SPAM. NEWSHOSTING ENFORCES A ZERO-TOLERANCE SPAM POLICY REGARDING OURUSERS POSTS TO USENET THROUGH OUR NETWORK. IT IS THE SOLE DISCRETION OFNEWSHOSTING TO DETERMINE IF A USER'S POSTS ARE CONSIDERED SPAM. ADEFINITION OF SPAM CAN BE FOUND AT http://spam.abuse.net. IF NEWSHOSTINGHAS DETERMINED THAT A USER HAS POSTED 1 OR MORE ARTICLES OF SPAM, THATUSER WILL BE CHARGED A $500 PER HOUR CLEAN-UP FEE AND THE USER'S ACCOUNTWILL BE CANCELED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO REFUNDS AND ALL REASONABLE EFFORTSWILL BE MADE BY NEWSHOSTING TO PREVENT THE USER FROM USING OUR NETWORKANYTIME THEREAFTER.

CONTENT. CUSTOMER SHALL NOT USE THE SYSTEM TO POST OR TRANSMIT ANYILLEGAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY TRANSMISSIONS THATWOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY, OROTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAW ORREGULATION.

RIGHT TO RESTRICT ACCESS. NEWSHOSTING MAY DENY CUSTOMER ACCESS TO ALL ORPART OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT NOTICE IF CUSTOMER ENGAGES IN ANY CONDUCT ORACTIVITIES THAT NEWSHOSTING IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION BELIEVES VIOLATES ANYOF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT. IF NEWSHOSTING DENIESCUSTOMER ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF SUCH A VIOLATION, THE CUSTOMERSHALL HAVE NO RIGHT (1) TO ACCESS THROUGH NEWSHOSTING ANY MATERIALSSTORED ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET, (2) TO OBTAIN ANYCREDIT(S) OTHERWISE DUE TO CUSTOMER, AND SUCH CREDIT(S) WILL BEFORFEITED, (3) TO ACCESS THIRD PARTY SERVICES, MERCHANDISE ORINFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET THROUGH NEWSHOSTING,AND NEWSHOSTING SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY ANY THIRD-PARTYPROVIDERS OF SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR INFORMATION NOR ANY RESPONSIBILITYFOR ANY CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM LACK OF NOTIFICATION OR RESTRICTIONOF CUSTOMER'S ACCESS. SECURITY. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET ORUSENET, AND TO CERTAIN ONLINE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVES THE USE OFIDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, PASSWORDS, CHARGE OR DEBIT ACCOUNTS OR OTHERINDIVIDUALIZED NONPUBLIC INFORMATION ("PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION"). CUSTOMERSHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE SYSTEM OROF ANY PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION, AND SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT TO NEWSHOSTINGANY SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED USE OR OTHER BREACH OF SECURITY. CUSTOMERSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ITS IDENTIFICATIONNUMBERS OR PASSWORDS UNTIL NEWSHOSTING RECEIVES WRITTEN NOTICE OF ABREACH OF SECURITY AND A REQUEST TO BLOCK FURTHER ACCESS FOR SUCHNUMBERS AND PASSWORDS. NEWSHOSTING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANYUNAUTHORIZED USE OF CHARGE, DEBIT OR OTHER CREDIT ACCOUNTS.

Contact details:Should you have any questions, complaints or comments about our Termsafter reading them, please do not hesitate to contact us by letter ore-mail (***@newshosting.com).

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, inan attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise chooseto receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubiousproducts, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam coststhe sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by therecipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.

There are two main types of spam, and they have different effects onInternet users. Cancellable Usenet spam is a single message sent to 20or more Usenet newsgroups. (Through long experience, Usenet users havefound that any message posted to so many newsgroups is often notrelevant to most or all of them.) Usenet spam is aimed at "lurkers",people who read newsgroups but rarely or never post and give theiraddress away. Usenet spam robs users of the utility of the newsgroups byoverwhelming them with a barrage of advertising or other irrelevantposts. Furthermore, Usenet spam subverts the ability of systemadministrators and owners to manage the topics they accept on their systems.

Email spam targets individual users with direct mail messages. Emailspam lists are often created by scanning Usenet postings, stealingInternet mailing lists, or searching the Web for addresses. Email spamstypically cost users money out-of-pocket to receive. Many people -anyone with measured phone service - read or receive their mail whilethe meter is running, so to speak. Spam costs them additional money. Ontop of that, it costs money for ISPs and online services to transmitspam, and these costs are transmitted directly to subscribers.

One particularly nasty variant of email spam is sending spam to mailinglists (public or private email discussion forums.) Because many mailinglists limit activity to their subscribers, spammers will use automatedtools to subscribe to as many mailing lists as possible, so that theycan grab the lists of addresses, or use the mailing list as a directtarget for their attacks.

Terms of UseNewsHosting Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Agreement

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS IN ORDER TO PROCEED

NewsHosting has a zero-tolerance SPAM policy.

SPAM. NEWSHOSTING ENFORCES A ZERO-TOLERANCE SPAM POLICY REGARDING OURUSERS POSTS TO USENET THROUGH OUR NETWORK. IT IS THE SOLE DISCRETION OFNEWSHOSTING TO DETERMINE IF A USER'S POSTS ARE CONSIDERED SPAM. ADEFINITION OF SPAM CAN BE FOUND AT http://spam.abuse.net. IF NEWSHOSTINGHAS DETERMINED THAT A USER HAS POSTED 1 OR MORE ARTICLES OF SPAM, THATUSER WILL BE CHARGED A $500 PER HOUR CLEAN-UP FEE AND THE USER'S ACCOUNTWILL BE CANCELED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO REFUNDS AND ALL REASONABLE EFFORTSWILL BE MADE BY NEWSHOSTING TO PREVENT THE USER FROM USING OUR NETWORKANYTIME THEREAFTER.

CONTENT. CUSTOMER SHALL NOT USE THE SYSTEM TO POST OR TRANSMIT ANYILLEGAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY TRANSMISSIONS THATWOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY, OROTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAW ORREGULATION.

RIGHT TO RESTRICT ACCESS. NEWSHOSTING MAY DENY CUSTOMER ACCESS TO ALL ORPART OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT NOTICE IF CUSTOMER ENGAGES IN ANY CONDUCT ORACTIVITIES THAT NEWSHOSTING IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION BELIEVES VIOLATES ANYOF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT. IF NEWSHOSTING DENIESCUSTOMER ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF SUCH A VIOLATION, THE CUSTOMERSHALL HAVE NO RIGHT (1) TO ACCESS THROUGH NEWSHOSTING ANY MATERIALSSTORED ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET, (2) TO OBTAIN ANYCREDIT(S) OTHERWISE DUE TO CUSTOMER, AND SUCH CREDIT(S) WILL BEFORFEITED, (3) TO ACCESS THIRD PARTY SERVICES, MERCHANDISE ORINFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET THROUGH NEWSHOSTING,AND NEWSHOSTING SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY ANY THIRD-PARTYPROVIDERS OF SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR INFORMATION NOR ANY RESPONSIBILITYFOR ANY CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM LACK OF NOTIFICATION OR RESTRICTIONOF CUSTOMER'S ACCESS. SECURITY. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET ORUSENET, AND TO CERTAIN ONLINE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVES THE USE OFIDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, PASSWORDS, CHARGE OR DEBIT ACCOUNTS OR OTHERINDIVIDUALIZED NONPUBLIC INFORMATION ("PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION"). CUSTOMERSHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE SYSTEM OROF ANY PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION, AND SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT TO NEWSHOSTINGANY SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED USE OR OTHER BREACH OF SECURITY. CUSTOMERSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ITS IDENTIFICATIONNUMBERS OR PASSWORDS UNTIL NEWSHOSTING RECEIVES WRITTEN NOTICE OF ABREACH OF SECURITY AND A REQUEST TO BLOCK FURTHER ACCESS FOR SUCHNUMBERS AND PASSWORDS. NEWSHOSTING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANYUNAUTHORIZED USE OF CHARGE, DEBIT OR OTHER CREDIT ACCOUNTS.

Contact details:Should you have any questions, complaints or comments about our Termsafter reading them, please do not hesitate to contact us by letter ore-mail (***@newshosting.com).

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, inan attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise chooseto receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubiousproducts, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam coststhe sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by therecipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.

There are two main types of spam, and they have different effects onInternet users. Cancellable Usenet spam is a single message sent to 20or more Usenet newsgroups. (Through long experience, Usenet users havefound that any message posted to so many newsgroups is often notrelevant to most or all of them.) Usenet spam is aimed at "lurkers",people who read newsgroups but rarely or never post and give theiraddress away. Usenet spam robs users of the utility of the newsgroups byoverwhelming them with a barrage of advertising or other irrelevantposts. Furthermore, Usenet spam subverts the ability of systemadministrators and owners to manage the topics they accept on their systems.

Email spam targets individual users with direct mail messages. Emailspam lists are often created by scanning Usenet postings, stealingInternet mailing lists, or searching the Web for addresses. Email spamstypically cost users money out-of-pocket to receive. Many people -anyone with measured phone service - read or receive their mail whilethe meter is running, so to speak. Spam costs them additional money. Ontop of that, it costs money for ISPs and online services to transmitspam, and these costs are transmitted directly to subscribers.

One particularly nasty variant of email spam is sending spam to mailinglists (public or private email discussion forums.) Because many mailinglists limit activity to their subscribers, spammers will use automatedtools to subscribe to as many mailing lists as possible, so that theycan grab the lists of addresses, or use the mailing list as a directtarget for their attacks.

Terms of UseNewsHosting Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Agreement

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS IN ORDER TO PROCEED

NewsHosting has a zero-tolerance SPAM policy.

SPAM. NEWSHOSTING ENFORCES A ZERO-TOLERANCE SPAM POLICY REGARDING OURUSERS POSTS TO USENET THROUGH OUR NETWORK. IT IS THE SOLE DISCRETION OFNEWSHOSTING TO DETERMINE IF A USER'S POSTS ARE CONSIDERED SPAM. ADEFINITION OF SPAM CAN BE FOUND AT http://spam.abuse.net. IF NEWSHOSTINGHAS DETERMINED THAT A USER HAS POSTED 1 OR MORE ARTICLES OF SPAM, THATUSER WILL BE CHARGED A $500 PER HOUR CLEAN-UP FEE AND THE USER'S ACCOUNTWILL BE CANCELED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO REFUNDS AND ALL REASONABLE EFFORTSWILL BE MADE BY NEWSHOSTING TO PREVENT THE USER FROM USING OUR NETWORKANYTIME THEREAFTER.

CONTENT. CUSTOMER SHALL NOT USE THE SYSTEM TO POST OR TRANSMIT ANYILLEGAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY TRANSMISSIONS THATWOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY, OROTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAW ORREGULATION.

RIGHT TO RESTRICT ACCESS. NEWSHOSTING MAY DENY CUSTOMER ACCESS TO ALL ORPART OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT NOTICE IF CUSTOMER ENGAGES IN ANY CONDUCT ORACTIVITIES THAT NEWSHOSTING IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION BELIEVES VIOLATES ANYOF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT. IF NEWSHOSTING DENIESCUSTOMER ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF SUCH A VIOLATION, THE CUSTOMERSHALL HAVE NO RIGHT (1) TO ACCESS THROUGH NEWSHOSTING ANY MATERIALSSTORED ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET, (2) TO OBTAIN ANYCREDIT(S) OTHERWISE DUE TO CUSTOMER, AND SUCH CREDIT(S) WILL BEFORFEITED, (3) TO ACCESS THIRD PARTY SERVICES, MERCHANDISE ORINFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET THROUGH NEWSHOSTING,AND NEWSHOSTING SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY ANY THIRD-PARTYPROVIDERS OF SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR INFORMATION NOR ANY RESPONSIBILITYFOR ANY CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM LACK OF NOTIFICATION OR RESTRICTIONOF CUSTOMER'S ACCESS. SECURITY. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET ORUSENET, AND TO CERTAIN ONLINE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVES THE USE OFIDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, PASSWORDS, CHARGE OR DEBIT ACCOUNTS OR OTHERINDIVIDUALIZED NONPUBLIC INFORMATION ("PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION"). CUSTOMERSHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE SYSTEM OROF ANY PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION, AND SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT TO NEWSHOSTINGANY SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED USE OR OTHER BREACH OF SECURITY. CUSTOMERSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ITS IDENTIFICATIONNUMBERS OR PASSWORDS UNTIL NEWSHOSTING RECEIVES WRITTEN NOTICE OF ABREACH OF SECURITY AND A REQUEST TO BLOCK FURTHER ACCESS FOR SUCHNUMBERS AND PASSWORDS. NEWSHOSTING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANYUNAUTHORIZED USE OF CHARGE, DEBIT OR OTHER CREDIT ACCOUNTS.

Contact details:Should you have any questions, complaints or comments about our Termsafter reading them, please do not hesitate to contact us by letter ore-mail (***@newshosting.com).

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, inan attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise chooseto receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubiousproducts, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam coststhe sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by therecipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.

There are two main types of spam, and they have different effects onInternet users. Cancellable Usenet spam is a single message sent to 20or more Usenet newsgroups. (Through long experience, Usenet users havefound that any message posted to so many newsgroups is often notrelevant to most or all of them.) Usenet spam is aimed at "lurkers",people who read newsgroups but rarely or never post and give theiraddress away. Usenet spam robs users of the utility of the newsgroups byoverwhelming them with a barrage of advertising or other irrelevantposts. Furthermore, Usenet spam subverts the ability of systemadministrators and owners to manage the topics they accept on their systems.

Email spam targets individual users with direct mail messages. Emailspam lists are often created by scanning Usenet postings, stealingInternet mailing lists, or searching the Web for addresses. Email spamstypically cost users money out-of-pocket to receive. Many people -anyone with measured phone service - read or receive their mail whilethe meter is running, so to speak. Spam costs them additional money. Ontop of that, it costs money for ISPs and online services to transmitspam, and these costs are transmitted directly to subscribers.

One particularly nasty variant of email spam is sending spam to mailinglists (public or private email discussion forums.) Because many mailinglists limit activity to their subscribers, spammers will use automatedtools to subscribe to as many mailing lists as possible, so that theycan grab the lists of addresses, or use the mailing list as a directtarget for their attacks.

So, there's nothing to get excited about here. They're desperatelytrying to undermine the press that is beating up the lies coming fromthe current administration. They really have no choice. They have toeither cook up an "alternative fact" narrative, or cry.

The MSM all seem to be dying.... Maybe they needed to start telling thetruth. Are they too ignorant to see their own folly?

Liberal Media EvidenceA new poll by the Pew Center proves that the media is as liberal asever. When will "diversity" mean more conservatives?

11:00 PM, May 27, 2004 | By Fred Barnes

THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals isover. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that soughtthe political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of theWashington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percentconservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to beself-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996,another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the PewResearch Center for the People and the Press found the national media tobe 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media'spolitics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided tocall themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, thePew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those ofself-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. Andthe proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyonddispute.

Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answersare, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for amoment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumberedliberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush begetting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agreewith that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostilityif the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And Icould go on.

The Pew poll also found that 55 percent of national journalists believethat Bush should be treated more critically by the press than he hasbeen. They think he's gotten off too easy, despite empirical evidence ofmedia Bush bashing. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examinedthe coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows andfound only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks afterSeptember 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates werepositive. For Bush, they've been 60-plus percent negative.

With the evidence of liberal dominance so overwhelming, a leading presscritic is now calling for more ideological diversity in the media. TomRosenstiel, who helped design the Pew poll and who runs the Project forExcellence in Journalism, says it's necessary not to think just ofdiversity that makes newsrooms "look like America," but to create apress corps that "thinks like America."

In truth, the effort to hire more minorities and women has had theeffect of making the media more liberal. Both these groups tend to haveliberal politics, and this is accentuated by the fact that many of thewomen recruited into journalism are young and single, precisely thosewith the most liberal views. "By diversifying the profession in oneway," Rosenstiel says, "they were making it more homogenous in another."

Rosenstiel insists it would be quite possible for news organizations tofind journalists with conservative views to hire. "There are ways tochange the culture of the newsroom," he says. Media recruiters can turnto different colleges than the ones where they've traditionallyrecruited. They can look to different parts of the country. And they canseek assistance from organizations that already train youngconservatives for careers in journalism.

Liberal Media EvidenceA new poll by the Pew Center proves that the media is as liberal asever. When will "diversity" mean more conservatives?

11:00 PM, May 27, 2004 | By Fred Barnes

THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals isover. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that soughtthe political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of theWashington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percentconservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to beself-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996,another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the PewResearch Center for the People and the Press found the national media tobe 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media'spolitics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided tocall themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, thePew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those ofself-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. Andthe proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyonddispute.

Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answersare, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for amoment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumberedliberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush begetting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agreewith that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostilityif the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And Icould go on.

The Pew poll also found that 55 percent of national journalists believethat Bush should be treated more critically by the press than he hasbeen. They think he's gotten off too easy, despite empirical evidence ofmedia Bush bashing. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examinedthe coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows andfound only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks afterSeptember 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates werepositive. For Bush, they've been 60-plus percent negative.

With the evidence of liberal dominance so overwhelming, a leading presscritic is now calling for more ideological diversity in the media. TomRosenstiel, who helped design the Pew poll and who runs the Project forExcellence in Journalism, says it's necessary not to think just ofdiversity that makes newsrooms "look like America," but to create apress corps that "thinks like America."

In truth, the effort to hire more minorities and women has had theeffect of making the media more liberal. Both these groups tend to haveliberal politics, and this is accentuated by the fact that many of thewomen recruited into journalism are young and single, precisely thosewith the most liberal views. "By diversifying the profession in oneway," Rosenstiel says, "they were making it more homogenous in another."

Rosenstiel insists it would be quite possible for news organizations tofind journalists with conservative views to hire. "There are ways tochange the culture of the newsroom," he says. Media recruiters can turnto different colleges than the ones where they've traditionallyrecruited. They can look to different parts of the country. And they canseek assistance from organizations that already train youngconservatives for careers in journalism.

Terms of UseNewsHosting Terms of Service (TOS) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Agreement

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS IN ORDER TO PROCEED

NewsHosting has a zero-tolerance SPAM policy.

SPAM. NEWSHOSTING ENFORCES A ZERO-TOLERANCE SPAM POLICY REGARDING OURUSERS POSTS TO USENET THROUGH OUR NETWORK. IT IS THE SOLE DISCRETION OFNEWSHOSTING TO DETERMINE IF A USER'S POSTS ARE CONSIDERED SPAM. ADEFINITION OF SPAM CAN BE FOUND AT http://spam.abuse.net. IF NEWSHOSTINGHAS DETERMINED THAT A USER HAS POSTED 1 OR MORE ARTICLES OF SPAM, THATUSER WILL BE CHARGED A $500 PER HOUR CLEAN-UP FEE AND THE USER'S ACCOUNTWILL BE CANCELED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO REFUNDS AND ALL REASONABLE EFFORTSWILL BE MADE BY NEWSHOSTING TO PREVENT THE USER FROM USING OUR NETWORKANYTIME THEREAFTER.

CONTENT. CUSTOMER SHALL NOT USE THE SYSTEM TO POST OR TRANSMIT ANYILLEGAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY TRANSMISSIONS THATWOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY, OROTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAW ORREGULATION.

RIGHT TO RESTRICT ACCESS. NEWSHOSTING MAY DENY CUSTOMER ACCESS TO ALL ORPART OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT NOTICE IF CUSTOMER ENGAGES IN ANY CONDUCT ORACTIVITIES THAT NEWSHOSTING IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION BELIEVES VIOLATES ANYOF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT. IF NEWSHOSTING DENIESCUSTOMER ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF SUCH A VIOLATION, THE CUSTOMERSHALL HAVE NO RIGHT (1) TO ACCESS THROUGH NEWSHOSTING ANY MATERIALSSTORED ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET, (2) TO OBTAIN ANYCREDIT(S) OTHERWISE DUE TO CUSTOMER, AND SUCH CREDIT(S) WILL BEFORFEITED, (3) TO ACCESS THIRD PARTY SERVICES, MERCHANDISE ORINFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET OR USENET THROUGH NEWSHOSTING,AND NEWSHOSTING SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY ANY THIRD-PARTYPROVIDERS OF SERVICES, MERCHANDISE OR INFORMATION NOR ANY RESPONSIBILITYFOR ANY CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM LACK OF NOTIFICATION OR RESTRICTIONOF CUSTOMER'S ACCESS. SECURITY. ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM, THE INTERNET ORUSENET, AND TO CERTAIN ONLINE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVES THE USE OFIDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, PASSWORDS, CHARGE OR DEBIT ACCOUNTS OR OTHERINDIVIDUALIZED NONPUBLIC INFORMATION ("PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION"). CUSTOMERSHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE SYSTEM OROF ANY PRIVATE DOCUMENTATION, AND SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT TO NEWSHOSTINGANY SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED USE OR OTHER BREACH OF SECURITY. CUSTOMERSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ITS IDENTIFICATIONNUMBERS OR PASSWORDS UNTIL NEWSHOSTING RECEIVES WRITTEN NOTICE OF ABREACH OF SECURITY AND A REQUEST TO BLOCK FURTHER ACCESS FOR SUCHNUMBERS AND PASSWORDS. NEWSHOSTING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANYUNAUTHORIZED USE OF CHARGE, DEBIT OR OTHER CREDIT ACCOUNTS.

Contact details:Should you have any questions, complaints or comments about our Termsafter reading them, please do not hesitate to contact us by letter ore-mail (***@newshosting.com).

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, inan attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise chooseto receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubiousproducts, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam coststhe sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by therecipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.

There are two main types of spam, and they have different effects onInternet users. Cancellable Usenet spam is a single message sent to 20or more Usenet newsgroups. (Through long experience, Usenet users havefound that any message posted to so many newsgroups is often notrelevant to most or all of them.) Usenet spam is aimed at "lurkers",people who read newsgroups but rarely or never post and give theiraddress away. Usenet spam robs users of the utility of the newsgroups byoverwhelming them with a barrage of advertising or other irrelevantposts. Furthermore, Usenet spam subverts the ability of systemadministrators and owners to manage the topics they accept on their systems.

Email spam targets individual users with direct mail messages. Emailspam lists are often created by scanning Usenet postings, stealingInternet mailing lists, or searching the Web for addresses. Email spamstypically cost users money out-of-pocket to receive. Many people -anyone with measured phone service - read or receive their mail whilethe meter is running, so to speak. Spam costs them additional money. Ontop of that, it costs money for ISPs and online services to transmitspam, and these costs are transmitted directly to subscribers.

One particularly nasty variant of email spam is sending spam to mailinglists (public or private email discussion forums.) Because many mailinglists limit activity to their subscribers, spammers will use automatedtools to subscribe to as many mailing lists as possible, so that theycan grab the lists of addresses, or use the mailing list as a directtarget for their attacks.

And why would anyone need to see 100% of what anyone publishes in thefirst place?

You make yourjudgements based on a cherry-picked selection of stories,

As do YOU, ASSHOLE!

and it'ssomeone else who's picking cherries for you.

Pot/kettle, brainwashed cunt in a dress...

My views aren't manipulated by what I can afford, I find WSJ in newsprint and for free and I find other news from paid sources, oftenthey're less informing than the commercial paid sources. News isn'talways time sensitive...

Your views are manipulated by whoever decides you should be allowed toread it.

President Trump on Friday denied a New York Times report that claims hetried to fire special counsel Robert Mueller in June.When asked about the story by reporters at the World Economic Forum inDavos, Switzerland, Trump said: “Fake news, folks, fake news.”

That's the absolutely irrefutable truth that Trumpchev tried to fire Mr.Mueller. Trumpchev calls *every* factual story that puts a bad harshlight on him "fake news."When Trumpchev calls anything "fake news", you know it is rock-solidaccurate news.

I wonder how many people except the far left even listen to the likesof CNN or the Post anymore.

CNN and the Post are just two entries in the center-to-left-of-centernews. Taken together, the Washington Post and the NYT are better readthan any paper in the United States. They beat USA Today, whosecirculation figures are a joke, because they're free in nearly everyhotel and motel in the US. But they're centerish, anyway.As for CNN, add in NBC and MSNBC. Together, they stomp the hell out ofFox News.The issue here is that most quality news outlets in the US arecenter/left-of-center. They overwhelm the readership and viewership ofthe right-wing news.

How many times has their breaking storybeen Bullshit?

Very rarely. They're the most accurate news organizations in theworld.

LOLNo such thing anymore.

Unless you're a news and history sponge who reads and watches allsides (I am), you probably have no way to evaluate that, Matt.

I watch much news but admit I stay away from the talk shows exceptReal Time and that is for entertainment.I'm a moderate so look for flaws in and on both sides. Have noticedpeople on the far Left or Right actually believe the bullshit when inplain sight or without evidence.

Right. That's generally true.If you want to get the sense of what goes on in real newsrooms, seehow many sources they quote for a serious story. The Times, WaPo, NBC,and the rest of the upper echelon of the MSM will have multiplesources. They almost never write a story without them, and if they do,they make it clear that it's from one source and unconfirmed.

What you say might be true but look at the subject line of this verypost. " Denies Trying To Fire" and you see a deception. That is theway of the News media anymore.

What deception? That was the story -- that Trump tried to fire Mueller-- and now *this* story is about Trump's denial of that story.That's accurate reporting.

The to you the words "considered firing" and "tried to fire" have thesame meaning.

Not at all.You don't seem to be following this. The paper reports that sourcestell them that Trump tried to fire Mueller. Trump denies it's true;the paper reports that.Both stories are accurate.The first story was reported first by the NYT. Here's their lede"President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. MuellerIII, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation,according to four people told of the matter..."They told the story that four people reported he tried to fireMueller. The Times didn't say they *saw* it happen themselves.And then WaPo and others confirmed it from *their* sources.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue goes after the Washington Postand the New York Times for yellow journalism:

On November 24, John Kelly of the Washington Post distorted what I saidlast year about the American Humanist Association, and today Ian Urbinaof the New York Times compounds the problem by plagiarizing from Kelly.

Kelly wrote a piece about the American Humanist Association’s newholiday ad promoting atheism. In referencing a previous campaign, hesaid it received “a bunch of publicity.” Then he wrote the following:“The head of the Catholic League lumped secular humanists in with suchfigures as Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler.”

Here is what Urbina wrote today about the same subject: “The head of theCatholic League linked secular humanists to figures like Hitler and theserial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.”

On November 12 last year, I debated Jesse Galef of the American HumanistAssociation on the Fox News Network. After Galef spoke, host HeatherNauret said the following: “All right. You know, Bill, they have theirFirst Amendment rights. They’ve got to say what they want.” Here is myreply: “Right. That’s right. They shouldn’t be profoundly ignorant,though. Sociology 101 says that morality has always been grounded inreligion. They are trying to say, ‘No, it is grounded in individuals.’Well, Jeffrey Dahmer had a conscience, too, Heather. And you know what?He destroyed his victims and then ate them. We saw what happened withmilitant secularism in the 20th century. Over 150 million dead becauseof this man’s philosophy—Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao and Stalin.”

To say, as Kelly and Urbina did, that I made my comment about theAmerican Humanist Association’s silly campaign—and not the philosophy ofmilitant secularism—is a gross distortion. And by the way, can’t they dotheir own research at the Times?

https://www.shiftfrequency.com/washington-post-yellow-journalism/

The real useful-idiot shills are the editors and hacks paid by theWashington Post, who are busy penning articles such as “Why theelectoral college should choose Hillary Clinton”. Isn’t thisfundamentally a call to over-ride the Constitutional framework of therepublic’s democracy?

In other words, the ruling elite’s candidate lost, so let’s subvertdemocracy to “right this terrible wrong” that was wrought by fed-updebt-serfs.

Substitution is a useful technique to reveal propaganda: if Trump hadlost by a thin margin, would the The Washington Post publish an article“Why the electoral college should choose Donald Trump”?

https://www.westernjournal.com/yellow-journalism-is-alive-and-well/

What is yellow journalism?

The term yellow journalism originated with comments on Hogan’s Alley andits main character “the Yellow Kid”, which was created by cartoonistRichard Outcault for the publisher Pulitzer in the New York World. Inthe late 1890’s Pulitzer was in a subscription war with William RandolphHearst and the New York Journal. Both Pulitzer and Hearst wanted toengage New York’s readers.

Advertisement – story continues below

The dictionary defines the term yellow journalism as deliberatedistortion or exaggeration to fuel speculation with the intent ofincreasing circulation. It is not anything resembling accurate newsreporting. It insinuates the opinions of the publishers or authors intowhat is reported as news with the intent of fueling speculation at theexpense of the truth. In the late nineteenth century it was used to fuelanti-Spanish sentiment and contributed to goading the United States intothe Spanish American War.

Yellow Journalism has been used in every period of history since theterm was coined. Every time there is a major event in our history thepress has always lent its own personal bent to the story. In manyinstances the press has published outrageous headlines with little or nosources cited for the story line. It is a technique that works with theaverage reader, especially today. Our time is getting more and morechallenged. When we look for something, we zero in on the headline andif it shocks or tantalizes us we read the story. Not all examples ofyellow journalism are bad. Some newspapers or digital media stick to thefacts and investigate their sources. The technique they use to presentthe story or headline can be similar.

Today there are members of the press who think they should make thestory instead of reporting it. The unsuspecting public is exposed to alltypes of news reporting. Many people associate the media with what itwas shortly after World War II and the Vietnam War. The public isdivided evenly on whether to believe what they read or hear in thenewspapers, digital media or airwaves. The media for the most part iscontrolled by liberal leaning financiers, and this is reflected in thereporting and labeling of the subject of the story. Liberals tend toside with the secular point of view and to expound upon the emotionsgenerated by different people and entities. This makes the job of thediscerning reader that much more difficult. They have to delve deep intoeach article to arrive at the truth if the truth is there.

The average person is influenced by what they believe is fair. If thenews media appeals to the reader’s sense of fairness, that favors thesensibilities of the average reader. If the articles are timed properlyand are imbedded with certain characteristics the news media can helpdetermine the outcome of political events. This was demonstrated in the2008 election. The ratio of favorable to negative for Obama was almost80% to 10%, while the ratio for McCain was almost the opposite 20%favorable to 70% negatives. The news media invested themselves in theelection of Obama and is still invested today in his continuing for 4more years. If the pendulum swings in the opposite direction there isalmost nothing the media can do to survive in its present form. A changeof power at the top and consequent revamp of the news media could bodewell for the next generation. Only time will tell if yellow journalismand its negative effects will rear its ugly head in the future.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue goes after the Washington Postand the New York Times for yellow journalism:

On November 24, John Kelly of the Washington Post distorted what I saidlast year about the American Humanist Association, and today Ian Urbinaof the New York Times compounds the problem by plagiarizing from Kelly.

Kelly wrote a piece about the American Humanist Association’s newholiday ad promoting atheism. In referencing a previous campaign, hesaid it received “a bunch of publicity.” Then he wrote the following:“The head of the Catholic League lumped secular humanists in with suchfigures as Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler.”

Here is what Urbina wrote today about the same subject: “The head of theCatholic League linked secular humanists to figures like Hitler and theserial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.”

On November 12 last year, I debated Jesse Galef of the American HumanistAssociation on the Fox News Network. After Galef spoke, host HeatherNauret said the following: “All right. You know, Bill, they have theirFirst Amendment rights. They’ve got to say what they want.” Here is myreply: “Right. That’s right. They shouldn’t be profoundly ignorant,though. Sociology 101 says that morality has always been grounded inreligion. They are trying to say, ‘No, it is grounded in individuals.’Well, Jeffrey Dahmer had a conscience, too, Heather. And you know what?He destroyed his victims and then ate them. We saw what happened withmilitant secularism in the 20th century. Over 150 million dead becauseof this man’s philosophy—Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao and Stalin.”

To say, as Kelly and Urbina did, that I made my comment about theAmerican Humanist Association’s silly campaign—and not the philosophy ofmilitant secularism—is a gross distortion. And by the way, can’t they dotheir own research at the Times?

https://www.shiftfrequency.com/washington-post-yellow-journalism/

The real useful-idiot shills are the editors and hacks paid by theWashington Post, who are busy penning articles such as “Why theelectoral college should choose Hillary Clinton”. Isn’t thisfundamentally a call to over-ride the Constitutional framework of therepublic’s democracy?

In other words, the ruling elite’s candidate lost, so let’s subvertdemocracy to “right this terrible wrong” that was wrought by fed-updebt-serfs.

Substitution is a useful technique to reveal propaganda: if Trump hadlost by a thin margin, would the The Washington Post publish an article“Why the electoral college should choose Donald Trump”?

https://www.westernjournal.com/yellow-journalism-is-alive-and-well/

What is yellow journalism?

The term yellow journalism originated with comments on Hogan’s Alley andits main character “the Yellow Kid”, which was created by cartoonistRichard Outcault for the publisher Pulitzer in the New York World. Inthe late 1890’s Pulitzer was in a subscription war with William RandolphHearst and the New York Journal. Both Pulitzer and Hearst wanted toengage New York’s readers.

Advertisement – story continues below

The dictionary defines the term yellow journalism as deliberatedistortion or exaggeration to fuel speculation with the intent ofincreasing circulation. It is not anything resembling accurate newsreporting. It insinuates the opinions of the publishers or authors intowhat is reported as news with the intent of fueling speculation at theexpense of the truth. In the late nineteenth century it was used to fuelanti-Spanish sentiment and contributed to goading the United States intothe Spanish American War.

Yellow Journalism has been used in every period of history since theterm was coined. Every time there is a major event in our history thepress has always lent its own personal bent to the story. In manyinstances the press has published outrageous headlines with little or nosources cited for the story line. It is a technique that works with theaverage reader, especially today. Our time is getting more and morechallenged. When we look for something, we zero in on the headline andif it shocks or tantalizes us we read the story. Not all examples ofyellow journalism are bad. Some newspapers or digital media stick to thefacts and investigate their sources. The technique they use to presentthe story or headline can be similar.

Today there are members of the press who think they should make thestory instead of reporting it. The unsuspecting public is exposed to alltypes of news reporting. Many people associate the media with what itwas shortly after World War II and the Vietnam War. The public isdivided evenly on whether to believe what they read or hear in thenewspapers, digital media or airwaves. The media for the most part iscontrolled by liberal leaning financiers, and this is reflected in thereporting and labeling of the subject of the story. Liberals tend toside with the secular point of view and to expound upon the emotionsgenerated by different people and entities. This makes the job of thediscerning reader that much more difficult. They have to delve deep intoeach article to arrive at the truth if the truth is there.

The average person is influenced by what they believe is fair. If thenews media appeals to the reader’s sense of fairness, that favors thesensibilities of the average reader. If the articles are timed properlyand are imbedded with certain characteristics the news media can helpdetermine the outcome of political events. This was demonstrated in the2008 election. The ratio of favorable to negative for Obama was almost80% to 10%, while the ratio for McCain was almost the opposite 20%favorable to 70% negatives. The news media invested themselves in theelection of Obama and is still invested today in his continuing for 4more years. If the pendulum swings in the opposite direction there isalmost nothing the media can do to survive in its present form. A changeof power at the top and consequent revamp of the news media could bodewell for the next generation. Only time will tell if yellow journalismand its negative effects will rear its ugly head in the future.

Look, you yeasty little cunt: you wouldn't be able to verify my time atUCLA even if "Rudy Canoza" were my real name. You know you couldn't.You wouldn't even know how to try.

I did, back when no one knew who you were and I tracked you down. Ieven found out which two cellular phone companies you and your wifeused. d8-)So yeah, Rudy has a bachelor's in econ from UCLA, and was in a PhDprogram there for a few years.

Well, I have a dream. When I can't stand to watch the news anymore, Ilean back in my Barcalounger, turn off the TV and close my eyes, andthink about Mussolini hanging by his feet from the roof of an Esso gasstation.Happy days!

Damned///Those Queer Democrats just never let up.Now they want to givePresident Trump HIV/AIDS.

--Machiavelli wrote:It is necessary for the state to deal in lies and halftruths,because people are made up of lies and half truths. Even Princes.' Andcertainly, by definition all Ambassadors and politicians

The truth is that most of us have a good idea about how to judge, andwe know that publications like the NYT and WP live or die onmaintaining their reputation for integrity. And they've lived, becausethey do have integrity.